The Atheist - Agnostic - Non religious thread

Why would they develop independently? This is philosophy, you're not allowed to handwave anything.

I was raised in a religious vacuum.  When my mother forced me to attend her church starting when I was a teenager, I had no idea what the hell those people were on about, especially the idea of "Jesus died for your sins."  What the hell does that mean?  I know perfectly well now, but at the time it was just superstitious voodoo mumbo jumbo.  It still is exactly that, but at least I understand where it comes from.

All the Big Questions are Open Questions.  Where did Life come from?  I don't know, I'll never know, no one knows, so no use pretending you know and no point in wondering about it.  Well, wondering is fine, just don't pretend you know the answer, because you don't.  Same answer to all the other Big Questions.

I am vehemently Anti-Faith.  Faith is an ugly and delusional thing.  Pretending you know something when you have no evidence.  I KNOW that Jesus died for my sins, because I have FAITH.  That's just primitive foolishness.  Believe only what you can prove empirically; everything else is an open question.

Though I do like empiricism, I don't have blind faith in science either.  Science is not my religion.  Despite the logical leap many atheists take about evolution REALLY HAPPENING, it's just a theory, and an unprovable one (unless you can run an experiment for 6 million years.)  It's a good theory and one that doesn't bother me in the least.  It's probably correct, but I'll never be able to take the next step and adamantly proclaim it's the correct and only truth, which is exactly what religions do, and with no evidence to support their claims whatsoever.

Evidential belief or nothing.  It would do the human race no end of good to realize how little it actually knows.  Apart from what makes a good prog album, that is (and even that is a totally subjective thing, subject to the vagary of personal taste.  MY album is better than YOUR album because I like it better?  Get out of here!)

"Non-believer."  That's a bigoted and inaccurate term.  I believe I'm typing a reply to a web forum and that I'm listening to The Best of Focus, and I can prove both of these to you instantly if you want to stop by for a visit.

I don't believe in imaginary things, like the Easter Bunny, Santa Claus, God and Jesus Christ.

"Faith" isn't a verb, so "non-faither" isn't accurate.  "Anti-faith" is good.  As is empiricist.

When Obama appends "non-believer" to a list of faiths, he sounds like a bigot and an idiot.  Why not say atheist?  Why bring it up at all?

Did you know that Christian America believes atheists are less patriotic and less "American" than Muslims?

Bufo wrote: "Non-believer."  That's a bigoted and inaccurate term.  I believe I'm typing a reply to a web forum and that I'm listening to The Best of Focus, and I can prove both of these to you instantly if you want to stop by for a visit.

But you don't believe in religious things, which we all know it what "non-believer" refers to when not qualified by something after it, like "in the ability of so-and-so to do cuch-and-such right." So, I guess if you want to be really strict about it, it's inaccurate, but saying it's bigoted is just plain comical.

Politicians that try to seem religious make me want to go kick them in the sack.

Alitare wrote: Henry Plainview wrote: stonebeard wrote: Henry Plainview wrote: Why would they develop independently? This is philosophy, you're not allowed to handwave anything. What are you referring to? The moral tenents that James claims are just "common sense". Why are they? They are common sense because the majority of members of our society have come together to conclude they are common. This is a completely subjective notion, and to be honest, not plausible within any universal truths. I suppose you could say it is subjectively objective, but in other societies, these common senses could be radically different, with or without religion. Ideas are just that. They don't exist in reality. Just in our minds and in the fake laws we try to make as a society. So I must concur, Henry.

I would not even go as far as saying they "developed". It is natural behaviour given that has been given a fancy name. Man is a pack animal, to be a member of that pack there are specific characteristics and traits that are inherent in the animal - these are the basis of what we call morality and are present in all animals that have to live in a collective to survive. Common sense is just another form of it - it is common sense not to kill a fellow member of the tribe because you reduce your own chances of survival.

Brian, do these things really exist? I know about I Can't Believe It's Not Butter!, but not about the other two.. Next time I go by the grocery store I'll check anyway.

Dean wrote:   Common sense is thus named because it is common to the pack, herd, tribe, but as my Dad used to say "common sense ain't so common now-a-days"

^ For a while this company called Ditech was running commercials with the line "people are smart", which immediately prompted me to think what kind of idiot came up with that? 

Neil wrote: then before too long someone will take it upon themselves to exile or exterminate you.

Yet that is somehow perfectly all right and not morally wrong.


Edited by James - June 08 2009 at 12:55